EU STRATEGIC PRIORITIES, 2013-2020

Ref. Ares(2012)162420 - 13/02/2012

                  EU STRATEGIC PRIORITIES, 2013-2020

                              A submission from SLIC

Introduction

1      The purpose of this paper is to provide a submission setting out the views
of SLIC on:

   1. EU strategic priorities in health and safety for the period 2013-20; and
   2. Activities of SLIC to contribute to the EU strategy for 2013-20;

Throughout the paper, we refer to an EU Strategy for the period in question. We
note that the Commission Work Programme for 2012 refers to a Communication
that will build on the current strategy (and the associated Impact Assessment,
SEC(2007) 216/2), in particular by enhancing OSH governance, improving
implementation and promoting health and safety at the workplace. We are
concerned that a narrower programme of this nature, lacking the characteristics
of a full strategy, would convey an intention to downgrade OSH (and thus reduce
protection from risk) at a time of economic pressure, and so we would prefer
there to be a strategy as originally proposed. We have three principal reasons.
First, thorough strategic forward planning becomes even more important at a time
of crisis. Second, we firmly believe that “good health and safety is good
business” and that an effective OSH strategy will contribute to social and
economic progress, not impede it. Third, the scale of the burden from work
related harm, as described for instance in SEC(2007) 216/2, justifies an
integrated and strategic response. Whichever approach is taken, we would ask
that the following analysis and proposals are taken into account.

The context for the new EU strategic priorities and the contribution of SLIC

2        In designing a new strategy capable of lasting until 2020, SLIC identifies
the following economic and social factors as being particularly significant during
the period:
    • Economic conditions raising the importance of creating good jobs and of
         promoting a full and long working life.
    • Demographic changes, including
             o the implications of an ageing workforce;
             o an increasing female labour force, requiring attention to gender
                 aspects of health and safety and to specific labour relations
                 issues;
             o high levels of worklessness;
             o fewer restrictions on working conditions, leading to greater variety
                 in working patterns including erratic hours, part time, shift-based
                 and temporary work, new forms of workplace (including working
                 from home), precarious and migrant working, illegal working;
             o fitness for work including work-related well-being and general
                 factors with negative impact, e.g. chronic diseases.
    • Scientific and technological developments.
    • New industries and activities such as “green jobs.”
    • Global influences including competition in manufacturing and supply.

3       We believe that good standards of health and safety, in accordance with
the principles in ILO OSH Conventions, effectively administered, integrated in
companies’ managerial systems, make an essential contribution to human well-
being and economic productivity. However the implementation of these
standards at the Member State level should not, of course, create unnecessary
administrative burdens; it will be of particular importance to avoid such
consequences in the challenging economic period that lies ahead.

4        We therefore support the analysis in the Communication from the
Commission, “An Agenda for new skills and jobs” COM (2010) 682 final
concerning action on four key priorities: better functioning labour markets; a more
skilled workforce; better job quality and working conditions; and stronger policies
to promote job creation and demand for labour. Whilst these are all connected,
SLIC’s primary concern is of course with the third. We would add to the analysis
at Section 3 of the Communication that adequate enforcement by all MS of the
legislation, and promotion of the so-called “soft instruments,” are prerequisites for
success; and that both are relevant areas of interest, and action, by Labour
Inspectorates.

5       COM (2010) 682 final identifies several matters upon which SLIC may
make an important contribution, such as the prevention of undeclared (illegal)
work. We would add that we believe SLIC has a particular contribution to make
to the delivery of the future EU strategy in the sharing of good practices between
Labour Inspectorates (as examined in the project report, NERCLIS); in identifying
techniques used to improve OSH, and providing reliable evidence of their
respective characteristics and merits; in providing evidence of the impact of the
techniques that Inspectorates use; and in promoting improvement and
consistency among its members through an effective continuing programme of
evaluations against the Common Principles of labour inspection, and by
exchanges of staff on short projects of mutual interest.

Evaluation of the “acquis” during the period 2013-20

6       Legislation that is readily understood by businesses, especially SMEs, is
a key to improving compliance as is the ability to implement it and for Labour
Inspectorates to enforce it. This is not simply a matter of reducing the number of
pieces of legislation, but of the need to simplify the ‘acquis’ without reducing
standards in the workplace. EU legislation should focus more on defining the
goals to be reached rather than prescribing “one size fits all” solutions as to how
these must be achieved.

7       In regard to the “acquis” we would like to contribute both to the review of
the existing body of EU Directives on health and safety at work, and to offer our
views on any new regulatory actions at the EU level. We would refer to the
applicable ILO OSH Conventions and codes of practice. For existing Directives,
SLIC has particular insight into their impact at the workplace, and into how readily
they may be enforced. We believe that these are important considerations to
take into account, alongside issues of more general interest such as the benefits
that are achieved in relation to the costs imposed, and the remaining extent of the
problem or issue that the Directive was created to address. In the terms “cost”
and “benefit” in this and the next paragraph, we include social and technical
factors, and public health considerations, not simply the factors of the financial
cost incurred versus the individual harm averted.

8       We believe that three tests should be applied when new Directives are
under consideration: the possibility to use other means than regulation; a cost
benefit analysis (as above); and a practical assessment of the means for
compliance (by dutyholders) and enforcement (for example by Labour
Inspectorates). Regulations, both existing and new, should be designed to reduce
risks (by which we mean the likelihood of a given hazard actually causing harm),
within the context of a general protection framework, rather than addressing
hazards which are not, in practice, likely to lead to significant levels of injury.

9       We recognise the importance of social partner involvement and dialogue
and the role of Bilateral Agreements, provided that these conform with the
provisions of the acquis and do not assign any role beyond what is envisaged
under the Treaty; take into account costs and benefits (as described above);
include provisions for their evaluation; and that MS are kept informed at all stages
during the development of such agreements.

Principles and characteristics upon which the new strategy should be based

10       The term “strategy” normally refers to the broad aims (sometimes
described as a “vision”) of what is to be achieved, setting out priorities and an
overall direction, rather than specifying in detail what is to be done, when and by
whom. We would prefer this to be the approach taken by the new strategy:
setting out high level statements of principle, supported by objectives and
illustrated by the fields and types of activity intended but without specifying in
detail what is to be done. In proposing success criteria at the EU level, the
Strategy should acknowledge that measures and targets may be better to be set
within the supporting action plans prepared by each Member State, rather than
being uniformly imposed. Furthermore we think that a categorisation of actions
along the following lines will enrich the prevention potential: (a) interventions
before and at the point of creation of risk; (b) interventions at and during
exposure to risk; and (c) interventions when the consequences of exposure to
risk arise.

11      A strategy of this kind should focus on a modest number of priorities of
wide concern and significant potential harm, rather than try to be comprehensive.
We suggest that for each such priority ( - we suggest several, below), a broad
goal is set so as to describe the outcome required, that Member States can then
plan to achieve in ways that reflect their individual priorities or circumstances.
We would make the general point here that problems are not uniform across
countries, nor are the means we each use to monitor and evaluate progress; nor
is such uniformity essential to collective progress. However, we are not
advocating that the priorities be optional; MS should appropriately address each,
but with flexibility as to their approach, reflecting national circumstances,

12      We suggest that the strategy should be based on and embody the
following general principles:

   •   The ethical and financial arguments in favour of good standards of health
       and safety are strong, and the protection of health and safety is a basic
       human right.
   •   Those who create risks are responsible for managing and controlling
       them, in partnership with those affected by the risks.

•   Strong leadership, competence, and effective consultation and
       involvement of the workforce are essential for success.
   •   A core aim of all involved in OSH should be to stimulate the desired
       behaviours of those who create, control, manage and experience risk.
   •   The interests of OSH are better served if it is seen and treated as a
       mainstream element of other policy areas such as education, and not as
       an optional extra.
   •   The competence of all who participate, including employers, workers,
       consultants, suppliers, regulators, advisers and representative bodies, is
       key to progress.
   •   Employers who behave wrongly (and others who have enforceable OSH
       duties), or who fail to meet their obligations, and as a result cause
       significant risk, should be effectively held to account through enforcement
       by adequately resourced LIs, capable of carrying out programmes of
       inspection and investigation of accidents aimed at identifying and
       correcting such wrongdoing.
   •   Labour Inspectorates should continue to adopt and demonstrate the
       characteristics in the General Principles by which they are currently
       evaluated by SLIC, as these play an important part in implementing the
       strategic priorities and objectives, and this programme of evaluations
       should be continued.

Demonstrating and measuring progress

13       The current strategy sets an ambitious goal for all Member States to
achieve: an overall 25% reduction in the total incidence rate of accidents at work
by 2012. SLIC believes that it is counterproductive to set single quantified targets
of this sort as there is a balance to strike between the EU strategy and the
precise circumstances of each MS. To illustrate this point: a MS with particularly
high rates of readily preventable fatalities in, say, agriculture and construction,
might decide that their priority is to set specific, stricter targets for these sectors
rather than to adopt an EU wide general target of less benefit for them.

14    In accordance with the model suggested in paragraphs 10-11 above, we
recommend a three level approach based on:

       (1) A high level statement of a broad goal, for example, “Protecting,
       maintaining and improving the standard of occupational health and safety,
       by meeting evidenced exposure standards and limits, and creating a
       culture of prevention across EU MS, as indicated through the long-term
       trend of occupational accidents and work-related ill-health generally, and
       within priority sectors and activities.”

       (2) Priorities of general concern to all MS, with comparable indicators to
       give the Commission and other Member States insight into
       implementation and compliance with the broad goals.

       (3) MS would then relate the general priorities to their own circumstances
       and identify additional national priorities, capturing all of these priorities in
       national action plans that identified effective ways to deliver them and,
       where appropriate, targets and measures. These plans could form, or
       contribute to, the national OSH profiles recommended by the ILO and
       provide a useful basis for sharing information and experience.

15      In setting this framework, we recognise the increased importance of
ensuring that we are able to proactively monitor progress based on a suite of key
leading (“before the event”) indicators rather than only monitoring
incident/accident statistics on a reactive basis. Whilst differing definitions
between MS present a continued challenge to harmonisation of data, we believe
that recent work on statistics and data evaluation, including that done by SLIC,
has produced some helpful solutions to address this issue.

16      We have referred to the need to emphasise the competence of all who
are involved in health and safety at work. We argue that the new strategy should
seek to motivate the whole range of “actors” in the health and safety system (EU
and MS). We see it as vital, for instance, to share examples of successful
ventures to assess, develop and improve safety culture. For example, there are
several examples of major construction projects that have successfully delivered
high standards of performance through effective engagement of all enterprises
working on the project, as well as other agencies. The improved culture has a
lasting effect with small contractors adopting the improved standards after project
closure.

Establishing priorities for the new strategy

Priority health issues

17      Occupational ill health contributes greatly to the social harm and cost
caused by poor OSH standards. However the possible subjects for attention are
so wide ranging that prioritisation is essential. And these would become even
wider if a life-based approach, rather than one based on risk at the workplace, is
adopted. We recognise the remit of some Labour Inspectorates over life-based
issues relating to health monitoring and promotion, social problems such as
smoking and alcohol addiction, and the social insurance systems for recognition
and compensation of work related injuries and diseases, which they pursue in
collaboration with other national agencies. With that proviso, SLIC supports the
development of a more targeted (group specific) approach in OSH and a focus on
work-related ill health and disease, which are the most common reasons for
working days lost and early retirement.

18      Where relevant, this approach should take into account the multi-factorial
causes, for example of work-related psychosocial ill health. From the viewpoint of
labour inspection the new EU-OSH strategy should look to provide new
instruments and tools to effectively address work-related, but multifaceted health
and safety problems. We would see this as a high and specific priority for long
latency diseases. We would support further research aimed at identifying clear,
effective indicators for the latent effects of ill-health, to help improve long-term ill-
health outcomes.

19      Using the approach described above, we would identify the following
health topics for prioritisation during the period of the strategy:

    •   Musculoskeletal disorders.
    •   Ill-health related to long latency diseases including occupational cancers,
        and chronic conditions such as occupationally caused lung disease. With
        regard to occupational cancer, priorities are that REACH works properly,
        classification (of carcinogens etc.) is expedited and better recognition of
        cancers as occupational diseases is secured.

•       Work-related psychosocial risks – which we see as likely to pose an
           increasing challenge up to 2020. The 2012 campaign will yield insights
           into how MS might make further progress on this subject, which is made
           complex by the fact that psychosocial issues reflect both life issues and
           working conditions (for example by enabling MS to work together to
           develop EU-wide support networks). We think there is a need for some
           very simple guidance for use by SMEs.

Priority industry sectors

20      We have not identified specific industries that are suitable to be chosen as
EU-wide priorities, because the circumstances (and therefore priorities) of MS
differ one from another. It seems to us more fruitful to agree priority issues, such
as the causes of ill health mentioned above, and to allow MS to deal with these
within particular industries within their National level strategies and action plans.
MS with the same problems could of course, and should be encouraged to,
collaborate to make their approach more effective, through sharing resources and
information for example. The strategy should acknowledge the enduring nature
of the main traditional safety risks, such as falls from height, workplace transport,
dangerous maintenance, and call upon MS to address these in effective ways
that match individual MS’ priorities.

21       Our experience regarding “green industries” suggests that a two-pronged
approach is required. Many of the risks they present are those found in traditional
activities – such as the risk of falling from wind turbines, or of instability arising
through unsatisfactory engineering design and installation – and these should be
addressed in conventional ways. In addition, new risks for example those
presented by nanotechnology, that are not yet well understood, should be the
focus for research.

SMEs

22       Over the next few years the importance of supporting the (safe and
healthy) growth of Small and Medium Enterprises, micro and new businesses will
be a priority. A lot of work has recently been done for example on simplified risk
assessment. A key aim of SLIC’s work in this area will be, as now, to act as a
facilitator to:

       •    increase OSH competence of SMEs (emphasising Article 7 of the
            Framework Directive “competent source of advice”);
       •    improve the ease of compliance with requirements, and
       •    provide (or signpost towards) modern accessible guidance.

23       The term “SME” refers to a factual characteristic – simply, that the
enterprise has no, or few, employed workers. SMEs are not a “sector.” They
differ greatly in other respects, from those self-employed businesses who create
risks to no-one other than themselves, to small firms carrying out high risk
activities such as roof repair work. They are many in number, and will often have
short business lives. It is therefore essential to direct the available inspection
resources onto priorities among SMEs, and not to treat them as a uniform group.

24      There is not a single solution to these challenges, although the simple e-
tools and printed and e-guidance that have been developed over recent years are
making it easier for a large number of SMEs to conduct sensible, proportionate

risk assessments. In developing and providing the tools it is essential that this is
done to make sure as far as possible that they can and will reach their target
audience. We feel that the problem lies in the lack of use of information (by
SMEs in particular), rather than the lack of availability, as a great deal of work
has been done in recent years to provide OSH information, including via the
Web, by a wide range of organisations.

25      SLIC considers that there would be merit in conducting an analysis of why
the information available to enterprises is not being utilised as well as it should
be, and to identify some recommendations for improvement. We would be happy
to assist the Commission in reviewing how to reduce administrative burdens on
SMEs to ensure that the obligations on all enterprises to manage high-risk issues
and to protect others (e.g. members of the public) are not relaxed; are met in
ways that SMEs find practical; and that simplification is achieved in other
respects.

26      In many cases SMEs and self-employed are part of the
contractor/supplier/purchaser chain of bigger companies, and so the new strategy
should further put priority on means to engage large organisations to take
responsibility and assist “their” SMEs to improve and maintain their OSH
performance. We suggest that there is scope to do more to examine and
develop ways in which SMEs can be supported by other enterprises in this way.
We are aware of examples of good practice where larger businesses have
influenced their suppliers and contractors by applying their own higher standards,
and by offering other forms of support such as training. Sharing the benefits in a
positive way across MS and enterprises may help to influence improved long-
term OSH behaviour.

The role of campaign type activities

27       We would support continuing to stage risk-based inspection and
information campaigns. A SLIC Working Group on campaign evaluation has
identified priorities for future campaigns on the basis of MS priorities. In this way
the Strategy and National action plans will align to provide a concerted approach
to OSH across EU, on matters where collective effort is agreed to be appropriate.

28      SLIC would propose to take part in, and possibly coordinate, campaigns
during the strategy period, but we would not necessarily assume that there had to
be a campaign once every two years; the important point is to have an important
subject of wide general interest, and to design a campaign (including timing)
around that. Given the general pressures on resources, we suggest that every
effort be made to “join up” the campaign efforts of SLIC and other bodies such as
EU-OSHA and the ILO.

Vulnerable workers

29     We have identified a broad range of issues that may make a worker
vulnerable including insecure employment contracts (self-employed, temporary
working, migrant workers), new labour patterns, other factors affecting ill-health
(demographic change, obesity, etc) and “dangerous” work. Whilst the wide
range of contracts may not reduce the rights of the worker, their rights may have
been reduced if, for example, they are a “posted” worker who, when working
abroad, has the rights of the host country. This may make the worker vulnerable
depending on the work being done and the risks associated with it. It will be
important to be selective about which of these may usefully be addressed

through the review of the “acquis” and by the actions of Labour Inspectorates.
We feel that some further analysis is required first so that only real (rather than
theoretical) problems are addressed. This research should examine the
proposition that vulnerable workers are found mainly in SMEs.

Cooperation between organisations with health and safety remits

30       It is possible that sub-groups of Member States might have standing
interests in common, and if so that the strategy might help by demonstrating and
offering support for them to work together (for example, the Regional Alliance of
Labour Inspection among south-east European MS and neighbourhood
countries, and the longstanding cooperation between the Baltic States and the
Nordic Council of Ministers).

31     There is direct contact already between ILO and SLIC. We propose to
develop a closer working relationship with relevant international organisations
and institutions, for example to stimulate the sort of research referred to in this
note. We feel also that there is scope for better coordination of the activities of
European (and other) agencies including for example EU-OSHA, SLIC, ACSHW
and EUROFOUND.

SLIC

9 February 2012